Strategies that facilitate the delivery of exceptionally good patient care in general practice: a qualitative study with patients and primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, proactive strengths-based approaches to improving quality of care have been advocated. The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from those who perform exceptionally well. Central to this approach is the identification of the specific strategies, behaviours, tools and contextual strategies used by those positive deviants to perform exceptionally well. This study aimed to: identify and collate the specific strategies, behaviours, processes and tools used to support the delivery of exceptionally good care in general practice; and to abstract the identified strategies into an existing framework pertaining to excellence in general practice; the Identifying and Disseminating the Exceptional to Achieve Learning (IDEAL) framework. METHODS: This study comprised a secondary analysis of data collected during semi-structured interviews with 33 purposively sampled patients, general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers. Discussions explored the key factors and strategies that support the delivery of exceptional care across five levels of the primary care system; the patient, provider, team, practice, and external environment. For analysis, a summative content analysis approach was undertaken whereby data were inductively analysed and summated to identify the key strategies used to achieve the delivery of exceptionally good general practice care, which were subsequently abstracted as a new level of the IDEAL framework. RESULTS: In total, 222 individual factors contributing to exceptional care delivery were collated and abstracted into the framework. These included specific behaviours (e.g., patients providing useful feedback and personal history to the provider), structures (e.g., using technology effectively to support care delivery (e.g., electronic referrals & prescriptions)), processes (e.g., being proactive in managing patient flow and investigating consistently delayed wait times), and contextual factors (e.g., valuing and respecting contributions of every team member). CONCLUSION: The addition of concrete and contextual strategies to the IDEAL framework has enhanced its practicality and usefulness for supporting improvement in general practices. Now, a multi-level systems approach is needed to embed these strategies and create an environment where excellence is supported. The refined framework should be developed into a learning tool to support teams in general practice to measure, reflect and improve care within their practice.

Identifying Factors that Support the Delivery of Exceptional Care in General Practice and Development of the IDEAL Framework: A Qualitative Study.

The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from those that perform exceptionally well. Positive deviance as an approach to quality improvement is gaining traction in general practice. This study aimed to explore and compare stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that support the delivery of exceptional care in general practice and to refine a previously developed theoretical framework of factors associated with positively deviant care in general practice: the Identifying and Disseminating the Exceptional to Achieve Learning (IDEAL) framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 purposively sampled patients, general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers in Irish general practice. Subsequently, a directed content analysis approach was employed to deductively analyse interview data using the IDEAL framework, and newly emerging factors were inductively analysed and abstracted into the framework. Several distinct strategies (e.g. patient activation and team collaboration), structures (e.g. facilities and staffing), and contextual factors (e.g. communication and rapport, and culture) were found to support the delivery of exceptional care, and differences in perceptions, values, and expectations emerged between patients and practice staff. Interview data largely supported the pre-determined factors posited by the IDEAL framework, and new factors were abstracted into the framework (e.g. facilities and infrastructure). Stakeholder engagement regarding the factors supporting exceptional care in general practice supported and extended the IDEAL framework, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of how exceptional care is delivered in general practice. The refined framework will support researchers, policymakers, and teams looking to support, measure, and achieve exceptionally good patient care in general practice.

Measuring and monitoring patient safety in hospitals in the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Measuring and monitoring safety (MMS) is critical to the success of safety improvement efforts in healthcare. However, a major challenge to improving safety is the lack of high quality information to support performance evaluation. AIMS: The aim of this study was to use Vincent et al.'s MMS framework to evaluate the methods used to MMS in Irish hospitals and make recommendations for improvement. METHODS: The first phase of this qualitative study used document analysis to review national guidance on MMS in Ireland. The second phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders on their understanding of MMS. The MMS framework was used to classify the methods identified. RESULTS: Six documents were included for analysis, and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders working in the Irish healthcare system. A total of 162 methods of MMS were identified, with one method of MMS addressing two dimensions. Of these MMS methods, 30 (18.4%) were concerned with past harm, 40 (24.5%) were concerned with the reliability of safety critical processes, 16 (9.8%) were concerned with sensitivity to operations, 28 (17.2%) were concerned with anticipation and preparedness, and 49 (30%) were concerned with integration and learning. CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide range of methods of MMS in Irish hospitals. It is suggested that there is a need to identify those methods of MMS that are particularly useful in reducing harm and supporting action and improvement and do not place a large burden on healthcare staff to either use or interpret.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient complaints within one Irish teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically impacted the delivery of hospital care in terms of quality and safety. OBJECTIVES: To examine complaints from two time points, quarter 4 (Q4) 2019 (pre-pandemic) and Q4 2020 (second wave), and explore whether there was a difference in the frequency and/or content of complaints. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of complaints from one Irish hospital was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Within each complaint, the content, severity, harm reported by the patient, and stage of care were categorised. The complaints were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS: There were 146 complaints received in Q4 2019 and 114 in Q4 2020. Complaint severity was significantly higher in Q4 2019 as compared to Q4 2020. However, there were no other significant differences. Institutional processes (e.g. staffing, resources) were the most common reason for complaints (30% in Q4 2019 and 36% in Q4 2020). The majority of complaints were concerned with care on the ward (23% in Q4 2019 and 31% in Q4 2020). CONCLUSIONS: The severity of complaints was significantly higher in Q4 2019 than in Q4 2020, which requires further exploration as the reasons for this are unclear. The lack of a difference in the frequency and content of complaints during the two time periods was unexpected. However, this may be linked to a number of factors, including public support for the healthcare system, existing system-level issues in the hospital, or indeed increased staff collaboration in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

A scoping review of patient safety research carried out in the Republic of Ireland.

Maintaining the highest levels of patient safety is a priority of healthcare organisations. However, although considerable resources are invested in improving safety, patients still suffer avoidable harm. The aims of this study are: (1) to examine the extent, range, and nature of patient safety research activities carried out in the Republic of Ireland (RoI); (2) make recommendations for future research; and (3) consider how these recommendations align with the Health Service Executive's (HSE) patient safety strategy. A five-stage scoping review methodology was used to synthesise the published research literature on patient safety carried out in the RoI: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) chart the data; and (5) collate, summarise, and report the results. Electronic searches were conducted across five electronic databases. A total of 31 papers met the inclusion criteria. Of the 24 papers concerned with measuring and monitoring safety, 12 (50%) assessed past harm, 4 (16.7%) the reliability of safety systems, 4 (16.7%) sensitivity to operations, 9 (37.5%) anticipation and preparedness, and 2 (8.3%) integration and learning. Of the six intervention papers, three (50%) were concerned with education and training, two (33.3%) with simplification and standardisation, and one (16.7%) with checklists. One paper was concerned with identifying potential safety interventions. There is a modest, but growing, body of patient safety research conducted in the RoI. It is hoped that this review will provide direction to researchers, healthcare practitioners, and health service managers, in how to build upon existing research in order to improve patient safety.

An analysis of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patients and family members make complaints about their hospital care in order to express their dissatisfaction with the care received and prompt quality improvement. Increasingly, it is being understood that these complaints could serve as important data on how to improve care if analysed using a standardized tool. The use of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for this purpose has emerged internationally for quality and safety improvement. Previous work has identified hot spots (areas in care where harm occurs frequently) and blind spots (areas in care that are difficult for staff members to observe) from complaints analysis. This study aimed to (i) apply the HCAT to a sample of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) to identify hot spots and blind spots in care and (ii) compare the findings of this analysis to a previously published study on hospital complaints in the UK. METHODS: A sample of complaints was taken from 16 hospitals in the RoI in Quarter 4 of 2019 (n = 641). These complaints were coded using the HCAT to classify complaints by domain, category, severity, stage of care and harm. Chi-squared tests were used to identify hot spots, and logistic regression was used to identify blind spots. The findings of this study were compared to a previously published UK study that used HCAT to identify hot spots and blind spots. RESULTS: Hot spots were identified in Irish hospital complaints while patients were receiving care on the ward, during initial examination and diagnosis, and while they were undergoing operations or procedures. This aligned with hot spots identified in the UK study. Blind spots were found for systemic problems, where patients experience multiple issues across their care. CONCLUSIONS: Hot spots and blind spots for patient harm can be identified in hospital care using the HCAT analysis. These in turn could be used to inform improvement interventions, and direct stakeholders to areas that require urgent attention. This study also highlights the promise of the HCAT for use across different healthcare systems, with similar results emerging from the RoI and the UK.

Longitudinal survey of self-reported level of entrustment across the first year of clinical practice.

Background. Newly graduated medical students often report that they lack the skills required to care for patients, and feel unprepared for clinical practice. However, little is known about when, and if, they acquire these skills in practice. The aim of this study was to assess self-reported level of entrustment in, and frequency of performance of, the seven Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) comprising the EPA framework for interns in Ireland. EPAs describe discrete activities that are essential to a particular profession. Methods. Self-report survey data were collected from doctors in the Republic of Ireland during their first year of clinical practice at four different time points during 2020/21. Results. Response rates to the survey varied from 73.3% (126/172) at Time 1 to 25.6% (44/172) at Time 4. After three months, the respondents reported that they could execute all of the EPAs, inclusive of 12 essential procedural skills, with indirect supervision. As the year progressed there was an increase in the proportion of respondents reporting that they performed the EPAs at least once a week. However, the proportion of respondents performing five of the essential procedural skills (e.g. nasogastric tube insertion) remained low across all time points. Conclusion. Consideration should be given as to how to better prepare medical students to execute these EPAs, how the interns can be better supported during the first quarter of internship. The findings from this research are positive. However, there is an urgent need to carry out formal assessments of entrustability, rather than relying on self-report.

The patient's "story": an examination of patient-reported safety incidents in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incidents (PSIs) are typically studied through engagement with healthcare providers, without input from patients despite their privileged viewpoint of care experiences. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential of the patient viewpoint as a lens for future safety improvement initiatives, by: (i) collecting and analysing patients' accounts of PSIs; and (ii) comparing patient and clinician perceptions of PSIs. METHODS: Firstly, Critical Incident Technique (CIT) interviews were used to obtain rich descriptions of PSIs, which were then condensed into patient stories. Deductive content analysis was used to code the safety deficiencies described in patient stories using patient-derived safety categories. Secondly, General Practitioners (GPs) and patients individually rated the perceived severity and likelihood of each story. RESULTS: A total of 32 eligible patient stories were obtained from 25 interviews. Stories commonly described deficiencies related to communication, staff performance, and compassion/dignity/respect. There were significant differences in GP (n = 14) and patient (n = 11) severity and likelihood ratings. GPs were significantly more likely to consider stories to be a lower severity, and occurring with a lower frequency than patients. CONCLUSION: Elicitation of the patient perspective using the CIT allowed for the rich description of safety deficiencies that occur in general practice. Given that patients bring a unique and important viewpoint on safety, there is a need to make greater efforts to include the patient perspective of safety in healthcare.

A randomized controlled trial of SAFMEDS to improve chest radiograph interpretation among medical students.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Junior doctors find chest radiograph (CXR) interpretation challenging, and commonly make diagnostic errors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of SAFMEDS in teaching undergraduate medical students to identify important chest abnormalities in radiology imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial design was utilized. Third-year medical students were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 20), who received the SAFMEDS intervention, or a control group (n = 20), who did not receive the intervention. Three participants (one intervention, two control) withdrew from participation. Percentage accuracy in CXR interpretation was assessed at three timepoints (baseline, post-test, and retention). A series of one-way between-subjects' analyses of covariance, with percentage accuracy at the pre-test timepoint entered as the covariate, were conducted. RESULTS: Large effect sizes of the SAFMEDS intervention were observed at post-test and retention (η2 = 0.67, η2 = 0.58 respectively), with the intervention group demonstrating significantly higher percentage accuracy in CXR interpretation as compared to the control group at both timepoints. Intervention group performance decreased by 5.26% (SD = 9.80) from post-test to retention. Twelve intervention group participants (63.2%) met the fluency criteria. Despite large effect sizes, there were no significant differences in post-test or retention performance between fluent and non-fluent participants (η2 = 0.17 and η2 = 0.2 respectively). CONCLUSION: SAFMEDS offers an effective adjunct to usual teaching. Future research could focus on examining the effect of fluency with a larger sample, in addition the expansion of the SAFMEDS approach, and its' application to other health profession populations.

A Systematic Review of Patient-Report Safety Climate Measures in Health Care.

OBJECTIVES: Patients are a valuable, yet underutilized source of information for safety measurement and improvement in health care. The aim of this review was to identify patient-report safety climate (SC) measures described in the literature, analyze the included items to consider their alignment with previously established SC domains, evaluate their validity and reliability, and make recommendations for best practice in using patient-report measures of SC in health care. METHODS: Searches were conducted, with no limit on publication year, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete in November 2019. Reference lists of included studies and existing reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies that described the development or use of a patient-report measure to assess SC in health care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool. RESULTS: A total of 5060 studies were screened, with 44 included. Included studies described 31 different SC measures. There was much variability in the coverage of SC domains across included measures. Poor measure quality was marked by inadequacies in the testing and reporting of validity and reliability. There was also a lack of usability testing among measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified the extant patient-reported SC measures in health care and demonstrated significant variance in their coverage of SC domains, validity and reliability, and usability. Findings suggest a pressing need for a stand-alone measure that has a high validity and reliability, and assess core SC domains from the patient perspective, particularly in primary care.

Systematic review of interventions to improve gender equity in graduate medicine.

Women are substantially underrepresented in senior and leadership positions in medicine and experience gendered challenges in their work settings. This systematic review aimed to synthesise research that has evaluated interventions for improving gender equity in medicine. English language electronic searches were conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Reference list screening was also undertaken. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and March 2020 that evaluated interventions to improve gender equity, or the experiences of women, in academic or clinical medicine were reviewed. Dual reviewer data extraction on setting, participants, type of intervention, measurement and outcomes was completed. Methodological rigour and strength of findings were evaluated. In total, 34 studies were included. Interventions were typically focused on equipping the woman (82.4%), that is, delivering professional development activities for women. Fewer focused on changing cultures (20.6%), ensuring equal opportunities (23.5%) or increasing the visibility or valuing of women (23.5%). Outcomes were largely positive (87.3%) but measurement typically relied on subjective, self-report data (69.1%). Few interventions were implemented in clinical settings (17.6%). Weak methodological rigour and a low strength of findings was observed. There has been a focus to-date on interventions which Equip the Woman Interventions addressing systems and culture change require further research consideration. However, institutions cannot wait on high quality research evidence to emerge to take action on gender equity. Data collated suggest a number of recommendations pertaining to research on, and the implementation of, interventions to improve gender equity in academic and clinical settings.

Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare complaints are underutilized for quality improvement in general practice. Systematic analysis of complaints has identified hot spots (areas across the care pathway where issues occur frequently) and blind spots (areas across the care pathway that cannot be observed by staff) in secondary care. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) has been adapted to the HCAT(GP). AIMS: This study aimed to: (i) assess whether the HCAT(GP) can systematically analyze complaints about general practice; and (ii) identify hot spots and blind spots in general practice. METHODS: GP complaints were sampled. Complaints were coded with the HCAT(GP), classified by HCAT(GP) category (e.g. Safety, Environment, Listening), stage of care (e.g. accessing care, referral/follow-up), severity (e.g. low, medium, high), and harm (e.g. none, major). Descriptive statistics were run to identify discrete issues. A chi-square test of independence identified hot spots, and logistic regression was used for blind spots. RESULTS: A total of 230 complaints, encompassing 432 issues (i.e. unique problems within complaints), were categorized. Relationship issues (e.g. problems with listening, communication, and patient rights) emerged most frequently (n = 174, 40%). Hot spots were identified in the consultation and the referral/follow-up stages (χ 2(5, n = 432) = 17.931, P < 0.05). A blind spot for multiple issues was identified, with the likelihood of harm increasing with number of issues (odds ratio = 2.02, confidence interval = 1.27-3.23, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Complaints are valuable data for improving general practice. This study demonstrated that the HCAT(GP) can support the systematic analysis of general practice complaints, and identify hot spots and blind spots in care.

A systematic review of the use of positive deviance approaches in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Positive Deviance (PD) approach focuses on identifying and learning from those who demonstrate exceptional performance despite facing similar resource constraints to others. Recently, it has been embraced to improve the quality of patient care in a variety of healthcare domains. PD may offer one means of enacting effective quality improvement in primary care. OBJECTIVE(S): This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on applications of the PD approach in primary care. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched; MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Web of Science. Studies reporting original data on applications of the PD approach, as described by the PD framework, in primary care were included, and data extracted. Thematic analysis was used to classify positively deviant factors and to develop a conceptual framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS). RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included in the review. Studies most frequently addressed Stages 1 and 2 of the PD framework, and targeted 5 core features of primary care; effectiveness, chronic disease management, preventative care, prescribing behaviour, and health promotion. In total, 268 factors characteristic of exceptional care were identified and synthesized into a framework of 37 themes across 7 system levels. CONCLUSION: Several useful factors associated with exceptional care were described in the literature. The proposed framework has implications for understanding and disseminating best care practice in primary care. Further refinement of the framework is required before its widespread recommendation.

The positive deviance approach is focused on identifying people/organizations performing particularly well, in spite of having similar challenges and resources to others, and learning about how they work so well. Recently, this approach has been used in healthcare to learn about how to improve the quality and safety of care for patients. This review aims to explore how the positive deviance approach has been used in primary care settings and to summarize the findings from this research. Overall, 27 studies were included in the review. We found that studies typically focused on identifying positive deviants (i.e. those performing particularly well) and finding out what helps them do that, without looking to see if these same practices work elsewhere or teaching others about them. The positive deviance approach was used to improve several different parts of primary care including; care effectiveness, management of chronic diseases, preventative care, prescribing, and health promotion. Several success strategies were identified from the studies' findings and were organized into a framework describing what practices contribute to particularly good performance in primary care. This framework will be useful for those looking to improve quality of care in primary care.

What are the predictors of hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit? A cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Although appropriate hand hygiene (HH) practices are recognised as the most effective preventative strategy for infection, adherence is suboptimal. Previous studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have found differences in HH compliance between those moments that protect the patient, and those that protect the healthcare provider. However, such studies did not control for other variables known to impact HH compliance. AIM: To examine HH among healthcare workers (HCWs) in ICU settings, and identify whether there is a statistical difference in HH compliance between patient-protective and self-protective moments, while controlling for other variables known to influence HH compliance (i.e. professional role, unit and shift time). METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four ICUs across three Irish hospitals. Compliance was assessed according to the WHO's 'five moments for hand hygiene'. HCW professional role, total number of 'opportunities' for HH and whether compliance was achieved were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 712 HH opportunities were recorded, with an overall compliance rate of 56.9%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that physicians, allied healthcare professionals and auxiliary staff were less likely than nurses to engage in HH. HCWs were more likely to comply during night shifts compared to morning shifts, and with self-protective as compared to patient-protective HH moments. CONCLUSION: The information provided in this study provides a data-driven approach that ICUs can use to tailor HH interventions to where, when and for whom they are most required.

Patients' perception of safety climate in Irish general practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although patients have the potential to provide important information on patient safety, considerably fewer patient-report measures of safety climate (SC) have been applied in the primary care setting as compared to secondary care. Our aim was to examine the application of a patient-report measure of safety climate in an Irish population to understand patient perceptions of safety in general practice and identify potential areas for improvement. Specifically, our research questions were: 1. What are patients' perceptions of SC in Irish general practice? 2. Do patient risk factors impact perceptions of SC? 3. Do patient responses to an open-ended question about safety enhance our understanding of patient safety beyond that obtained from a quantitative measure of SC? METHODS: The Patient Perspective of Safety in General Practice (PPS-GP) survey was distributed to primary care patients in Ireland. The survey consisted of both Likert-response items, and free-text entry questions in relation to the safety of care. A series of five separate hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relationship between a range of patient-related variables and each of the survey subscales. A deductive content analysis approach was used to code the free-text responses. RESULTS: A total of 584 completed online and paper surveys were received. Respondents generally had positive perceptions of safety across all five SC subscales of the PPS-GP. Regarding patient risk factors, younger age and being of non-Irish nationality were consistently associated with more negative SC perceptions. Analysis of the free-text responses revealed considerably poorer patient perceptions (n = 85, 65.4%) of the safety experience in primary care. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that despite being under-utilised, patients' perceptions are a valuable source of information for measuring SC, with promising implications for safety improvement in general practice. Further consideration should be given to how best to utilise this data in order to improve safety in primary care.

Measuring and monitoring patient safety in hospitals in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: There is much variability in the measurement and monitoring of patient safety across healthcare organizations. With no recognized standardized approach, this study examines how the key components outlined in Vincent et al's Measuring and Monitoring Safety (MMS) framework can be utilized to critically appraise a healthcare safety surveillance system. The aim of this study is to use the MMS framework to evaluate the Saudi Arabian healthcare safety surveillance system for hospital care. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of two distinct phases. The first phase used document analysis to review national-level guidance relevant to measuring and monitoring safety in Saudi Arabia. The second phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders between May and August 2020 via a video conference call and focused on exploring their knowledge of how patient safety is measured and monitored in hospitals. The MMS framework was used to support data analysis. RESULTS: Three documents were included for analysis and 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders working in the Saudi Arabian healthcare system. A total of 39 unique methods of MMS were identified, with one method of MMS addressing two dimensions. Of these MMS methods: 10 (25 %) were concerned with past harm; 14 (35 %) were concerned with the reliability of safety critical processes, 3 (7.5 %) were concerned with sensitivity to operations, 2 (5 %) were concerned with anticipation and preparedness, and 11 (27.5 %) were concerned with integration and learning. CONCLUSIONS: The document analysis and interviews show an extensive system of MMS is in place in Saudi Arabian hospitals. The assessment of MMS offers a useful framework to help healthcare organizations and researchers to think critically about MMS, and how the data from different methods of MMS can be integrated in individual countries or health systems.

How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As compared to other domains of healthcare, little is known about patient safety incidents (PSIs) in prehospital care. The aims of our systematic review were to identify how the prevalence and level of harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care are assessed; the frequency of PSIs in prehospital care; and the harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care. METHOD: Searches were conducted of Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and the grey literature. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies reporting data on number/frequency of PSIs and/or harm associated with PSIs were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from the studies and carried out a critical appraisal using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Of the 22 included papers, 16 (73%) used data from record reviews, and 6 (27%) from incident reports. The frequency of PSIs in prehospital care was found to be a median of 5.9 per 100 records/transports/patients. A higher prevalence of PSIs was identified within studies that used record review data (9.9 per 100 records/transports/patients) as compared to incident reports (0.3 per records/transports/patients). Across the studies that reported harm, a median of 15.6% of PSIs were found to result in harm. Studies that utilized record review data reported that a median of 6.5% of the PSIs resulted in harm. For data from incident reporting systems, a median of 54.6% of incidents were associated with harm. The mean QATSDD score was 25.6 (SD = 4.1, range = 16-34). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review gives direction as to how to advance methods for identifying PSIs in prehospital care and assessing the extent to which patients are harmed.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a novel physician-report tool for assessing barriers to providing care to autistic patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals on the autism spectrum face significant disparities in health and physicians often report difficulties in providing care to autistic patients. In order to improve the quality of care autistic individuals receive, it is important to identify the barriers that physicians experience in providing care so that these may be addressed. This paper reports the initial development and preliminary evaluation of a physician-report 'Barriers to Providing Healthcare' measurement tool. METHOD: An established taxonomy of healthcare barriers for autistic individuals informed the initial draft of a 22-item measurement tool. This measurement tool was distributed to physicians working in various healthcare specialties and settings. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the construct validity of the tool; discriminant validity between, and internal consistency of, the resultant factors were assessed. Multiple regressions were used to explore variables potentially associated with barriers endorsed by physicians. RESULTS: A total of 203 physicians were included in the analyses. The EFA resulted in a 17-item tool with three distinct factors which explained 37.6% of the variance: 1) Patient-related barriers (Cronbach's α = 0.83; e.g., the patient's reactivity to the healthcare environment); 2) Healthcare provider (HCP)/family-related barriers (Cronbach's α = 0.81; e.g., a lack of providers willing to work with autistic patients); and 3) System-related barriers (Cronbach's α = 0.84; e.g., there is a lack of support for patients and families). Discriminant validity between the factors was adequate (r < .8). The barriers that were most frequently endorsed as occurring 'often' or 'very often' included a lack of support for patients and families (endorsed by 79.9% of physicians); communication difficulties (73.4%); and a lack of coordination between services (69.9%). The regression analyses identified no significant associated variables. CONCLUSION: A preliminary version of a novel physician-report tool to assess barriers to providing care to autistic patients has been developed although further validation work is required. The use of this tool will help physicians to identify issues specific to different medical specialities and healthcare settings. This information may help identify the supports physicians require to recognise and implement the required accommodations. Future research which elucidates barriers to healthcare provision for autistic patients is required to support systemic change in healthcare so as to improve care experiences and health outcomes for people on the autism spectrum.